Your voice to help protect Family, Faith, and Freedom.

You are here

Trditional Marriage News

Date:

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

By Reid Wilson, Published: August 20 at 8:57 am

Rev. Irene Matsumoto of Palolo Kwannon Temple signs a resolution supporting gay marriage at the First Unitarian Church of Honolulu in Honolulu on Monday, Aug. 19, 2013. More than two dozen Hawaii faith leaders of various religions signed a resolution Monday calling the state to pass a law legalizing gay marriage. (AP/Oskar Garcia)

Hawaii state House Democrats will meet this week to gauge whether they can come up with the votes to pass a bill legalizing same-sex marriage.

If there is sufficient support, and if legislative leaders can agree on language that would withstand court challenges, Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D) will call a special session to deal with the issue this fall. Abercrombie told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser he thinks it’s “very likely” there will be a special session.

“I think we can put together something that can achieve a solid majority, that will give us the opportunity to establish marriage equity in the state of Hawaii commensurate with the recent Supreme Court decisions, and will satisfy and resolve the issues that are presently before the appeals court on the mainland,” Abercrombie told a gathering of state Democrats.

Abercrombie’s chief of staff, Blake Oshiro, is working on language with the state attorney general’s office, the Star-Advertiserreported Monday. State Senate leadership says they have the votes to pass a same-sex marriage bill.

Democrats have overwhelming majorities in both legislative chambers; they control the House by a 44-7 margin, and they hold 24 of 25 seats in the Senate. But the legislature has to rely on Abercrombie to call a special session because they can’t meet the two-thirds threshold to call one themselves.

Hawaii passed a constitutional amendment giving the legislature power to define marriage as a heterosexual union in 1998, but the legislature partially reversed itself in 2011, legalizing civil unions between same-sex couples.

South Carolina’s constitutional ban on gay marriage could be headed to court in the coming years.

SC Equality, the gay-rights advocacy group, has started a volunteer legal team to “explore options” for same-sex couples living in South Carolina now that the U.S. Supreme court has ordered the federal government to treat homosexual couples the same as heterosexual couples. South Carolina is one of the top states in the country where same-sex couples identify themselves as husbands or wives, according to the U.S. Census.

Columbia attorney Malissa Burnette is leading the effort. She says the group is “proceeding very carefully” at first, focusing on individual cases. But the ultimate goal, she said, is to overturn South Carolina’s constitutional ban on gay marriage, which voters approved in 2006.

“I’m very optimistic that it’s been seven, nearly eight years now, and I believe that even in South Carolina, people have become more aware that in their families, in their neighborhoods and in their workplace, there are gay and lesbian people that they see and speak with everyday, and that’s OK,” she said. “People are beginning to accept that more readily than they did in 2006.”

But the Palmetto Family Council has its own legal team ready to counter any effort to overturn the amendment.

Director Oran Smith says he relies on a statewide network of attorneys trained by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a national legal group that, according to its website, is devoted to “religious liberty, the sanctity of life and marriage and family.”

Smith said he does not think his group would intervene in specific cases of same-sex couples seeking federal benefits. But it would intervene if “we saw a pattern of the courts not respecting the marriage amendment in South Carolina.”

“We would certainly want to assess whether we would want to become involved on an individual case by case basis,” Smith said. “Hopefully we would not need to do that.”

The 2006 amendment passed with 78 percent of the vote. In December, the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling found 62 percent of South Carolina voters said same-sex marriage should not be allowed, while 27 percent said it should be allowed (10 percent were not sure).

According to the U.S. Census, 7,214 same-sex couples live in South Carolina, or 4.01 couples per 1,000 households – ranked 38th in the country. Vermont was the No. 1 state, with 8.36 couples per 1,000 households.

But 22 percent of South Carolina’s same-sex couples identify themselves as husbands or wives, the 16th-highest percentage of the country. Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal, is No. 1 with 44 percent.

Burdette said there are 1,100 places in federal law where a protection or responsibility is based on marital status. She said federal agencies traditionally have deferred to state laws to determine whether a marriage is valid. So if a couple is married in Maryland and they move to South Carolina, Burdette said that is where her legal team could get involved.

A Pennsylvania county's choice to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in spite of the state ban on gay marriage "risks causing serious and limitless harm," Governor Tom Corbett's office said in legal filings on Monday.

Attorneys for the state's Health Department and Gov. Corbett filed a legal claim Monday against D. Bruce Hanes, the register of wills for Montgomery County, who has been illegally distributing marriage licenses to same-sex couples for the past several weeks. Since he began, Hanes has issued 116 same-sex marriage licenses in spite of the state's 1996 statute defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.

In Monday's legal filing, Gov. Corbett's office argued that Hanes is blatantly violating state law, and as a public official he cannot breech a law simply because he personally believes it to be unconstitutional. Rather, the legal brief asserts that it is the responsibility of the courts to determine a law unconstitutional.

"Ours is a government of laws, not one of public officials exercising their will as they believe the law should be or will be," the legal brief stated, warning that Hanes and other county officials may be guilty of one misdemeanor for each act of breaking the law.

The governor's legal team also argued in a statement last week that the county's breach of state law could cause limitless "administrative and legal chaos," including same-sex couples illegally filing for state benefits. The goal of Corbett's lawsuit is to have Montgomery County cease issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

Hanes began issuing the licenses shortly after the state's attorney general Kathleen Kane stated that she would not be defending the 1996 ban on same-sex marriage in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which is seeking to have the state legalize same-sex marriage. Kane, a democrat, said in a press conference that because she felt the 1996 ban to be unconstitutional, she could not ethically defend the law.

Gov. Corbett's office responded to Kane's announcement in a similar way it has responded to Hanes' actions, saying that her choice to not defend state law creates "confusion" in the courts, adding that her failure to defend the state was an "improper usurpation of the role of the courts, which at a minimum, causes confusion among those charged with administering the law." Corbett's office has now taken on the responsibility of defending the ban in court; the governor has previously voiced his opposition to same-sex marriage.

Hanes, who controls the distribution of marriage licenses in Montgomery County, has vowed to continue distributing licenses to same-sex couples until he is ordered by the court to stop. He has previously cited the Attorney General's decision to not defend the gay marriage ban in court as a justification for his actions.

Hanes wrote in an Op-Ed for the Main Line Times that after consulting with his solicitor, Michael Clarke, relying on his own analysis of the law, and following the lead of Kane, he decided to "come down on the right side of history and the law" and issue same-sex marriage licenses.

Lawyers for Montgomery County told the Associated Press Monday that they had just received the governor's legal brief and were going to review it before responding to the media. The county has until Aug. 19 to file a response.

GRIMES, IA, August 12, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Christian couple is facing a state complaint, business cancellations, and vulgar, harassing, and threatening e-mail messages after refusing to rent out a business facility for a gay “wedding.”

Dick and Betty Odgaard said they could not in good conscience allow a homosexual couple to use their business, the Görtz Haus Gallery, to conduct the ceremony itself.

Betty Odgaard

“To us, [marriage] is a sacrament,” Betty Odgaard said, that exists only “between a man and woman.”

She told Billy Hallowell of The Blaze their rejection was “totally a faith-based issue,” adding the couple would be happy to serve the homosexuals “in any other way,” besides being the site on which they traded vows.

The couple quickly filed a legal complaint before the Iowa Human Rights Commission, saying that state law forbids any public venue from denying the use of its premises on the basis of sexual orientation.

As the story of their denial broke, frightening messages began filling up the Odgaard's inbox, the couple says.

Two same-sex marriage experts told lawyers at an American Bar Association meeting in San Francisco today that they expect an "explosion of litigation" around the country in the wake of two U.S. Supreme Court rulings on gay nuptials.

But Chief Deputy San Francisco City Attorney Therese Stewart and National Center for Lesbian Rights Legal Director Shannon Minter said they think litigation in California may be close to an end.

Elsewhere, however, Minter said, "there are cases all over the country" challenging state bans on same-sex marriage.

The two attorneys spoke at a panel during the ABA's annual meeting, which continues in the city through Tuesday.

The session was entitled "More Than an Equal Sign: the Defense of Marriage Act, Proposition 8, the Supreme Court and Your Practice."

In one of its two rulings on June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the sponsors of Proposition 8, California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, had no standing to appeal a lower court ruling striking down the ban.

That decision left in place a federal trial court judge's injunction blocking enforcement of Proposition 8, and gay and lesbian weddings resumed in California two days later.

In the second ruling, made in the case of New York widow Edith Windsor, the court struck down a key provision of the federal DOMA law that barred the U.S. government from giving federal benefits and tax advantages to legally married gay and lesbian couples.

The court did not rule directly in either case on whether a state prohibition on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.

But Minter said the Windsor decision's reliance on constitutional equal protection and due process doctrines appears to provide a foundation for state law challenges.

"There's almost nothing in the Windsor decision that wouldn't apply to state marriage laws," he told the audience.

Thirteen states and the District of Columbia now allow same-sex marriages.

States where lawsuits contesting gay marriage bans are pending include Hawaii, Nevada, Utah, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia and New Mexico, among others.

The Hawaii and Nevada cases are now on appeal before the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals in San Francisco and are being considered together, Minter said.

In those two cases, federal trial judges upheld a Hawaii law and Nevada state constitutional amendment limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.

The 9th Circuit put the two cases on hold until the Supreme Court ruled on Proposition 8 and DOMA, and has now resumed receiving briefs in the two appeals. A hearing has not yet been scheduled.

Minter said that another type of litigation pending in a number of states is lawsuits seeking recognition of marriages of couples who were legally wed in one state but moved to another state.

"I think people are saying, 'We're not going to sit back any more,'" Minter said.

Stewart said litigation in California appears to be nearing an end after the Proposition 8 sponsors and San Diego County Clerk Ernest Dronenburg lost bids to the California Supreme Court for an immediate stay that would have reinstated Proposition 8.

The Proposition 8 backers still have a petition pending before the state court seeking review of their claim that the federal injunction protects only two couples who sued for the right to marry.

Stewart, who represented the city in the federal Proposition 8 case, predicted, "It's very likely we will see a denial of the petition very soon."

Dronenburg withdrew a similar petition on Monday.

Earlier, the Proposition 8 sponsors asked U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy for an emergency stay on June 29, and were turned down by Kennedy without comment the next day.

Stewart and Minter noted that in the two rulings in June, the U.S. Supreme Court followed a judicial tradition of avoiding a broad decision in situations in which a case can be resolved on narrow grounds.

But both forecast that the court will eventually rule on state marriage laws and that a majority of the justices will find the bans unconstitutional.

"They may postpone it as long as they can, but I do think that at the end of the day we'll get there in the Supreme Court," Stewart predicted.

Date:

Thursday, August 8, 2013

By: Rebecca ElliottAugust 8, 2013 05:10 AM EDT

Defending a divisive gay marriage ban is probably not the fight Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett would have chosen 15 months ahead of an election he’s widely expected to lose. A majority of Pennsylvanians now support same-sex marriage, a dramatic shift from just a few years ago.

But the issue has been thrust in the first-term Republican’s lap — and the politics may not be all bad for him.

Corbett’s decision to stand by the state’s 1996 ban will help shore up his shaky support among Republicans and all but eliminates the possibility of a primary challenge from the right, strategists said.

But the conflict between Corbett and Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania’s attorney general, also prolongs a conversation about an increasingly unpopular law when the governor is struggling to pick up every vote he can. A June poll out of Quinnipiac University said that Corbett, who is in his first term, has a dismal 30 percent favorability rating among Pennsylvania voters.

The legal debate over same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania was renewed two weeks after the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the state’s gay marriage ban, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman and specifies that Pennsylvania will not recognize same-sex couples’ out-of-state marriages.

Although the defense of such challenges ordinarily falls under the purview of the state attorney general, Kane made the rare decision to not to back the law, saying she believes it to be “wholly unconstitutional.”

That put Corbett, one of the least popular governors in the country, in a tough spot: defend a law that a growing number of voters disagree with; or side with Kane and anger the GOP base.

On July 30, he chose the former.

Corbett’s decision adds gay marriage to the list of issues he must juggle ahead of what’s expected to be a vicious reelection fight. His tanking popularity and struggles to push his agenda through a legislature controlled by his own party — privatizing liquor stores, public pension reform and transportation funding — have prompted several Democrats to jump into next year’s race.

Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.) announced her candidacy in April and State Treasurer Rob McCord launched a “McCord for Governor” political action committee in June. They lead Corbett by 10 and 8 points, respectively, according to the Quinnipiac poll.

Pennsylvania political analysts said Corbett had little choice but to defend the gay marriage ban.

“If he had chosen to accept the decision by Attorney General Kane, I think that would have put him in serious difficulty with his base” — namely, the most conservative voters in the state — said Franklin and Marshall pollster Terry Madonna.

Former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell said that he agrees with Kane that the Pennsylvania gay marriage law is unconstitutional but that Corbett “would look like a hypocrite” had he not defended it, given his stance on the issue.

Although the decision angered Democrats and could alienate moderate Republicans from the must-win Philadelphia suburbs, analysts said that in defending the law, Corbett all but guaranteed himself a straight shot at the Republican nomination, which had looked to be in jeopardy.

“I think if he didn’t defend it, the chances of someone from the party on the right using this as a moment to throw their hat in the ring would be much higher,” said Muhlenberg College pollster Chris Borick.

No Republicans have stepped up to run against Corbett since Montgomery County Commissioner Bruce Castor took a pass in May.

Nevertheless, strategists said the debate over gay marriage will remain at the forefront of Pennsylvania politics in the coming months. The fact that the state’s attorney general and governor are at odds on the legality of a law passed by the state legislature will provide ample fodder for the media.

“It promises to have a protracted life in terms of Pennsylvania news,” said T.J. Rooney, a former state representative who served as chairman of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party through 2010. “By its very nature it tends to draw people one way or the other.” Rooney is serving as the chair of Democratic gubernatorial candidate Katie McGinty’s campaign.

For Corbett, the extended coverage is less than welcome news. In 2006, a decade after the marriage law in question was passed, just 33 percent of Pennsylvanian voters approved of gay marriage. That number shot up by about 20 percentage points in the past seven years.

A February Franklin and Marshall poll found that 52 percent of Pennsylvania voters approve of gay marriage, the first time a public poll registered majority support. This number increased to 54 percent by May. However, a March poll from Public Policy Polling found that voters in the state were more divided on the issue, with 45 percent in favor of gay marriage as opposed to 47 percent against.

“In his optimal situation he would not have to talk about this issue at all, all the way to Election Day,” Borick said, adding that he thought Corbett would lose were an election to be held today.

However, what matters now may or may not be at the forefront of voters’ minds come November of next year.

“I think it has some potential to sort of replace abortion as the high-profile cultural issue,” Madonna said of gay marriage.

The ACLU lawsuit isn’t all that’s fueling the gay marriage controversy. The Corbett administration recently sued Montgomery County register of wills D. Bruce Hanes after he began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the Supreme Court struck down DOMA. And the mayor of Braddock, a Pittsburgh suburb, officiated a gay marriage on Monday in defiance of the law.

Still, “I don’t necessarily think Democrats are going to lead with this issue in 2014 against the governor,” Borick said. While Democrats will be perfectly happy to let Corbett deal with fallout arising from his defense of the ACLU’s suit, they will probably tread lightly given that a significant number of Democrats are uneasy with same-sex marriage.

“In terms of electing the next governor, it will be a non-issue,” Rendell said.

Republican strategist Charlie Gerow agreed that gay marriage will not be the deciding factor — or even a major factor — in the 2014 election.

“I think that it’s a significant shift,” Gerow said of the state’s changing opinions on gay marriage. “But it’s not yet so overwhelming that it’s going to cause a political problem for somebody who supports a law passed by the general assembly supporting or upholding traditional marriage.”

(CNSNews.com) – Co-founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center Morris Dees said his group’s “Hate Map” “doesn’t cause anybody to attack,” despite Floyd Lee Corkins’ admission that he targeted the Family Research Council (FRC) after going to the center’s website.

As Corkins told the FBI after his arrest, he learned of the FRC online, “It was a, uh, Southern Poverty Law, lists, anti-gay groups. I found them online. I did a little bit of research, went to the website, stuff like that.”

Corkins attempted a mass shooting on Aug. 15, 2012, opening fire at the Family Research Council and wounding Security Guard Leo Johnson.

Armed with more than 95 rounds of ammunition and 15 Chick-fil-a sandwiches, Corkins told the FBI that he chose the FRC as his first target after looking at a list of “anti-gay” groups on the SPLC’s website.

The Family Research Council is still listed on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “Hate Map” as “anti-gay.”

CNSNews.com questioned Dees about the Hate Map when he was in Washington, D.C., last week, asking whether his group has ever considered removing the FRC since the revelation from Corkins.

“Well, first of all, having a group on our Hate Map doesn’t cause anybody to attack them anymore than they attacked us for one thing or another,” Dees said. “This group that says gay people—statements attributed to their people said that gay people caused the Holocaust. Demonstrably false things they say about gay people.

“It’s not on our Hate Map because they’re against gay people—and many, the Catholic Church is against people who are gay, so as others—it’s because of the demonstrably false things they say about people that are just total lies that demean gay people, they cause people to attack gay people,” he said.

“They claim that somebody attacks them because they say hateful things, think about how many gay people get bashed because these people say that gay men are pedophiles, which is demonstrably false,” Dees said.

In a statement to CNSNews.com, the Catholic League took umbrage with Dees’s remarks.

“Morris Dees is a man in search of people and institutions to hate,” Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, said. “Branding the Family Research Council a hate group is not only irresponsible, it trivializes the status of hate-ridden groups that have claimed real victims.”

Floyd Corkins is taken into custody outside the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. on Aug. 15, 2012. (AP Photo)

“Now Dees is casting the Catholic Church as the enemy by misstating its teachings,” he said. “Nothing the Catholic Church has ever said about the moral status of homosexuals—which is as irrelevant as the moral status of heterosexuals—could possibly be construed as hateful.”

“Quite frankly, no amount of remedial education can help someone who can’t tell the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior,” Donohue said.

“Stupid or malicious, either way the guy [Dees] is a disgrace,” he said.

FRC Executive Vice President Gen. Jerry Boykin (ret.) told CNSNews.com, "The Southern Poverty Law Center’s reckless labeling has led to devastating consequences. Next week will be the one year anniversary of a terrorist shooting on our building that resulted in the shooting of our building manager. The Judge determined that it was an act of domestic terrorism after the shooter viewed the SPLC's hate map. Our team is still dealing with the fallout of the attack, that was intended to have a chilling effect on organizations that are simply fighting for their values."

"We are very disturbed that the Southern Poverty Law Center is now expanding its reckless attacks against the Catholic Church," said Boykin. "The SPLC has made false and inaccurate claims against the Family Research Council for years. The SPLC should fact check their own statements before making reckless accusations."

"Hate labeling is dangerous enough but outright misrepresentation of the facts further increases the likelihood of an attack on an organization similar to FRC," said the general.

CNSNews.com also tried to ask Dees about a double standard after former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s rhetoric was blamed for the shooting of former Rep. Gabby Giffords in Tuscon, Ariz. Dees said he was not familiar with the case.

CNSNews.com asked: “Do you see any double standard about how Sarah Palin was used—they said the Tuscon shooting was because she had a target of that district—and they blame her for violence—“

“I’m not familiar with it, I’m not familiar with what you’re talking about there,” Dees said. “You’re way off my base there.”

President Barack Obama speaks at a memorial service for the victims of the Tucson shootings at the University of Arizona on Wednesday, Jan. 12, 2011. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

“In Tucson, Giffords was Loughner’s primary target, the first to be shot,” the group wrote. “As Giffords recognized and acknowledged, she had been targeted in a particularly toxic re-election campaign. For example, in addition to being placed in Sarah Palin’s ‘crosshairs,’ her Tea Party-backed opponent ran the following invitation on his campaign website: ‘Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly.’”

“It’s easy to see how the threats and rancor of that time could have provided a facilitating context for an angry, depressed person to act out – someone like Jared Loughner, intent on violence, who had easy access to an exceedingly deadly weapon,” the Southern Poverty Law Center said.

The shooting of Gabby Giffords and the other victims in Tucson received extensive national and international news coverage. President Barack Obama traveled to Tucson and gave a nationally televised speech on Jan. 12, 2011, during primetime, about the crime.

On Aug. 16, 2012, the day after Corkins shot up the FRC and wounded its security guard, FRC President Tony Perkins held a press conference and said: “Let me be clear, that Floyd Corkins was responsible for firing the shot yesterday that wounded one of our colleagues and our friend Leo Johnson. But Corkins was given a license to shoot an unarmed man by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center that have been reckless in labeling organizations hate groups because they disagree with them on public policy.”

“And I believe the Southern Poverty Law Center should be held accountable for their reckless use of terminology that is leading to the intimidation and what the FBI here has categorized as an act of domestic terrorism,” he said. “There’s no room for that in a society such as ours that works through differences that we have on issues in public policy through a peaceful means.”

Don't expect Wisconsin to take any steps toward marriage equality in the near future, Gov. Scott Walker (R) said at a weekend conference in Milwaukee.

"To change anything in the constitution ... it requires two consecutive sessions of the legislature, and ultimately, a vote of the people,” Walker said, noting that Wisconsin voters adopted a gay marriage ban to the state constitution in a 2006 vote. “I just don't see that as being anything that's going to be addressed anytime soon."

Walker previously faced pressure on the issue from Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn (D) at the National Governors Association meeting. Quinn suggested that Walker should help ensure that same-sex couples have equal rights throughout the region. Minnesota began conducting same-sex weddings last week, and Quinn has said he'd sign a same-sex marriage bill that recently stalled in the state legislature.

Walker has previously expressed his support for gay marriage rights being left up to the discretion of states and their voters, though he's also noted that general opposition appears to be a losing issue for the GOP.

Wisconsin's views on gay marriage have changed since the passage of its 2006 gay marriage ban with 59 percent support. Recent polling has showed 46 percent of the state is now in favor of same-sex marriage, but that figure is short of the majority that would be needed to overturn the amendment with a statewide ballot initiative.

The Supreme Court ruled narrowly against California's gay marriage ban earlier this year. While the ruling didn't apply to all state restrictions on such unions, same-sex marriage advocates in Wisconsin and other states were encouraged by the move.

HARRISONBURG, PA, August 2, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane has followed the lead of Barack Obama and Jerry Brown by refusing to uphold the state's law protecting marriage between one man and one woman. At least one legislator thinks it is time she paid for violating her oath of office.

State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Butler, has said Kane's actions merit impeachment, because they spread “lawlessness.”

“I think breaking the law is worthy of impeachment,” Metcalfe told local media. “Her duty is to defend the law.

Shortly after her announcement, Montgomery County Register of Wills D. Bruce Hanes began issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals, despite the fact that state law forbids such unions. As of Friday afternoon, Hanes had issued 62 marriage licenses to homosexual couples, and 13 of their recipients have completed wedding ceremonies.

“By her example, this Montgomery County official felt emboldened to violate the law also,” Metcalfe said.

He believes Hanes should be impeached, as well. By the laws of the state, Hanes is “charged with carrying out the law of Pennsylvania and this individual breaks the law.”

“Ultimately, I think there might be an impeachment procedure,” he said. “The legislature could remove this individual from office for violating the law.”

Governor Tom Corbett, a Republican, instead filed suit to stop the illegal issuing of marriage certificates on Tuesday. His general sounsel, James Schultz, wrote that Attorney General Kathleen Kane's refusal to defend the law "establishes a very troubling precedent" that "will create chaos and uncertainty.”

“I am encouraged by Governor Corbett’s decision to use his authority to stop the intentional breaking of law by a local elected official,” said Sam Rohrer PPN president. “When two elected officials (Kane and Hanes) or any other, think that they can act above the law, demonstrate political tyranny, and encourage lawlessness, it is critical that the citizens know that they will be held accountable to the law by others in elected office who share the responsibility to ensure that law is upheld by all in public office.”

Already, others have said they are willing to act in violation of settled law. State College, Pennsylvania, Mayor Elizabeth Goreham has said she will perform “marriage” ceremonies for homosexuals, if the couples already have a marriage license.

However, at the moment Hanes is the only clerk issuing the certificates. The annual conference of the Registers of Wills and Clerks of Orphans' Court Association of Pennsylvania adopted a resolution this month agreeing to abide by the law.

Date:

Friday, August 2, 2013

WASHINGTON, D.C., August 1, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman has attracted bipartisan support from a pro-life Democrat in the House of Representatives.

Congressman Nick Rahall, D-WV, has joined as a co-sponsor of Tim Huelskamp's motion to protect marriage.

Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage said the West Virginia Congressman is the first “hopefully of many” Democratic representatives to support traditional marriage.

“Rep. Rahall's support proves once again that marriage is an issue that cuts past partisan politics and special interests, speaking universally to our shared common sense principles, such as every child's right to have both a mom and a dad,” Brown said.

Approximately one-third of Democrats do not believe in same-sex “marriage,” according to a recent Gallup poll. Nearly one-in-four believe redefining marriage would cause society to “change for the worse.”

That little impressed members of the homosexual lobby, who are a key constituency of the Democratic Party. “He apparently has a fondness for being on the wrong side of history,” a Human Rights Campaign spokesman said of Rahall.

Congressman Tom Latham, R-IA, withdrew as a co-sponsor one day after signing on, with spokesman Chris Deaton attributing his temporary sponsorship of the bill as “a staff member's mistake.”

A similar amendment came up for a House vote in July 2006, when it failed 236-187. Some 34 Democrats, including Rahall, voted for the measure. Latham voted for the 2006 amendment.

To pass, a constitutional amendment must receive two-thirds support from both chambers of Congress and then has to be ratified by 38 states.

Currently, 37 states ban same-sex “marriage,” while 13 states have redefined marriage – four of them (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and California) by judicial decree. Only three states – Washington, Maine, and Maryland – enacted the redefinition of marriage by voter referendum.